Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69749)	1/29/2003 3:57:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Europe, Both 'Old' and 'New,' Is Wary of War By Nina Burleigh COMMENTARY The Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003 PARIS -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's catchy phrase "Old Europe" had the French and Germans apoplectic last week. It was hard to fathom the reaction. After all, blithe belligerence is a hallmark of the Bush administration style. It's been provoking transatlantic discord for more than two years. From the standpoint of an American living in Europe, I would suggest that French and German opposition to rushing into a U.S.-led war against Iraq is hardly Old Europe. Old Europe is two world wars and a continent left in deprivation and shock. Old Europe is Cold War paranoia for 50 years, relying on the United States' nuclear threat to hold back the Russians. European war dissent is actually New Europe. New Europe is united under a currency that's stronger than the dollar. New Europe is filling up with an influx of refugee Muslims. New Europe is where Mohamed Atta and company hatched their plot, and where Islamist terrorists are even now stirring up batches of poison in suburban London and hoarding weapons in the banlieues of Paris. In France, the home of 8 million Muslims, Islam is the second religion, demographically speaking, right after Roman Catholicism. French culture is infused with Arab influences, from couscous shops to the Arabic dance and protest music called rai. European countries, historically homogeneous, have their own social and political problems with Islam. The difference is they live cheek by jowl with it. The Paris suburbs are crawling with armed North African gangs, and the Parisian police are said to fear entering the high-rises. The politics of Germany, Holland, even Britain, are profoundly affected by their growing Islamic communities. Europeans also hold in living memory the real effects of wartime on their own soil. They might have learned a little about bombs, occupation and the dogs of war. Perhaps that is what Rumsfeld meant by Old Europe. These people are in no giddy rush to sign on to a conflict that will surely bring suffering to the Iraqi civilian population, if not other parts of the world. To Europeans, the United States looks like the Old World. Instead of cultivating negotiation and patience and a sense of global impact, everyone knows the Bush administration has been "hellbent," as one magazine cover put it, on war for months now. Aside from terrifying Americans with vague notions of imminent nuclear or bioterror attacks on U.S. soil, the Bush administration has done nothing to assure anyone that it fathoms the structure of Islamist terrorism or cares about the concerns of moderate Muslims. A retrograde pall prevails at the White House. According to Newsweek, the elder George Bush was seen wandering through the offices of the chief advisors last week ("I'm just here to give a little adult leadership," the former president cracked), while former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger "sat patiently in the West Wing lobby." We Americans living abroad are constantly confronted by people who stop us to opine about what a disaster this war will bring to the world. In the United States, even though "the war on terror" is a logo in every newspaper and on every television news show, the topic of war feels muted. People go about their business, pacified with the Bush administration's indifference to dissent. During a brief trip to New York this month, I caught a few minutes of the "Today" show. Katie Couric was with the troops somewhere in the Middle East and regaling Matt Lauer with her high-energy pep via satellite. Standing before a backdrop of American servicemen and servicewomen ripped from their families, Perkosaurus rex described an F-16 flight she'd experienced. "Let me tell you, Matt, it was a two-bagger!" Gales of giggles. She proceeded to hold up a camouflage apron with the "Today" show logo, made specially for the cooking segment, "coming up next!" Living abroad, I had forgotten the deliberate lack of gravitas that infuses morning television; it was appalling to behold. Couric and her peers are forbidden by ratings to disturb bleary-eyed Americans with the bitter, hard truth about what war is. As Rumsfeld pointed out last week, ugly images like that belong to Old Europe now. _______________________________________________ Nina Burleigh is author of a forthcoming book about James Smithson, whose bequest established the Smithsonian Institution. latimes.com

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69749)	1/29/2003 8:02:08 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That’s what some people think. Other people – and not all of them are in Europe – think that establishing a precedent for preemptive war in the absence of an imminent and compelling threat, and giving sanction to a war for which no immediate and compelling case has been made, is more dangerous than any threat posed by Saddam. There are arguments on both sides, and it is by no means clear which argument is correct, or indeed if either is entirely correct. Describing one position as “right” assumes what has yet to be demonstrated, and proclaims a clarity that exists only in neocon fantasies. That's just plain absurd, Steven. The anti-war folks plead for Bush to do the right thing too. It is a particle of speech not a plot to run the universe. Much of the UN-bashing that I see these days seems motivated more by childish petulance than anything else. The purpose of the UNSC is not to provide a convenient rubber stamp for whatever the US wants to do. The UNSC is not convinced that this war is necessary. That’s not because they are inutile or because they have their heads in the sand, it’s because the Bush administration has not presented a terribly convincing case in support of war. Once again, nonsense. A 15-0 vote hardly means that the UNSC isn't behind him. A strong report from Blix hardly means that the UNSC isn't behind him. Sending Powell to make the pitch hardly means that the US doesn't want the UNSC. The situation is tense enough, no need to lose sleep over your own strawmen. Given these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the UNSC is not eager to sanction the war. If two other countries were involved, it’s not likely that we would sanction a war in similar circumstances. India’s case for preemptive war against Pakistan is far more compelling than the US case for preemptive war on Iraq, and we are not exactly eager to see that war break out. It has been suggested that we must argue that we do not seek a blanket sanction for preemptive war, but that Iraq is a special case. Unfortunately, the only discernably special feature about it is that we are the ones who want the war. Speaking of fantasy. Watch them line up behind Powell next week, fresh with their take of the spoils of war. Paul

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69749)	1/29/2003 11:30:15 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Two terrific quotes, Steven. We are arguing, in essence, that we want to go to war not because we are threatened, but because we think we might be in the future. This justification is widely perceived as inadequate. It is not the responsibility of the UN to accept our arguments simply because we are the ones making them. It is our responsibility to convince the community of nations that the action we seek is necessary. and Some Americans claim that if the UN fails to sanction a war on Iraq it will effectively be pronouncing its own inutility. The opposite is actually the case: if the UN sanctions a war that most of its members think unnecessary simply because the US desires it, it might as well disband and declare the world an American colony.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69749)	1/29/2003 11:40:39 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Other people – and not all of them are in Europe – think that establishing a precedent for preemptive war in the absence of an imminent and compelling threat.. It's a new world, Steven, in which "imminent" and "compelling" have new meanings. I won't go into it in detail since I presume you've heard all the arguments. Nevertheless, the new threats are not in the nature of tanks and armies being mobilized--things which can be seen at a distance and for which we can prepare. The new threats are more insidious and slippery. The damage they can do can be both substantial and immediate. Don't expect revenge-driven whack-jobs like Saddam or AQ to warn.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69749)	1/29/2003 1:39:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Describing one position as “right” assumes what has yet to be demonstrated, and proclaims a clarity that exists only in neocon fantasies. What, the guys arguing the other side of the argument don't think they are right too? Come on, Steven, everybody who argues for a political position thinks their side is "right" (especially after the arguments develop partisans), and the other side is "wrong". This doesn't substantiate your original argument that the neocons think all morality, right and altruism is on their side and none on the other (well, okay, they may sound that way when discussing Jacques Chirac). The neocons believe that their opponents in Europe, who mostly seem to be arguing "don't stir up the hornet's nest, don't attack, you'll just make them madder, fight terrorists with police work" are wrong. This is appeasement, they say, and it doesn't work against either against totalitarian fanatics or against megalomaniac tyrants such as Saddam. The neocons are not saying that appeasers are evil, they are saying that the appeasers are acting as apologists for evil when they work at "understanding" the grievances of Hizbullah and Al Qaeda. As you say, there are arguments on both sides, which are underlaid with real philosophical differences. The UNSC is not convinced that this war is necessary. That’s not because they are inutile or because they have their heads in the sand, it’s because the Bush administration has not presented a terribly convincing case in support of war. Snort. No, they are not convinced that this war is necessary because the US is footing the bill for containment in a manner quite satisfactory to the UNSC, and oh btw France and Russia have considerable oil interests in Iraq. And they are plenty inutile - name me a war they ever prevented. When the going gets tough, the UN gets going - the other way. Sinai 1967, Lebanon, Srebenica, Rwanda, the list is long. The one point I agree with is that the US should not have said the word "pre-emption", which just scared the bejeesus out of the rest of the world. Obviously, assymetrical warfare against terrorists is going to require it, because terrorists don't give notice (nor the states that sponsor them), but the US should not have said the word. This just provided the opening for the argument you are making, that the US is running about being "pre-emptive" in Iraq, which is not at all the case imo. The US has been in Iraq for twelve years already, and is fighting this war to extract itself from an untenable position, because the other options are even worse, and involve ceding hegemony of the Gulf to Saddam & sons within a few years. And since btw the untenable position involves trying to enforce UN resolutions (while the other members of the UNSC undermine them) we went back the UNSC. I'm in the camp who would just as soon not have bothered. The UNSC is not a world government, and I don't think US foreign policy is made more "legitimate" by having France, Syria and Cameroon vote for it.